Dismissed

Abdulla v. the Director General of Police

Kerala HC21 Mar 2014WP(C)/8186/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged police visits to their Kerala residence relating to an FIR registered in Maharashtra where they were neither accused nor witnesses. The Court held no material to show harassment and dismissed the petition, noting that objections to proceedings under CrPC must be raised separately if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no directions given to stop investigation.

Abdulla Vs the Director General of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/30TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 8186 of 2014 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. ABDULLA, S/O.MUHAMMED ISMAIL, RUKSANAS, SAIDARPALLY,TEMPLE GATE P.O., THALASSERY-670 102.

¶8

2. JAYESH,S/O.GOPINATHAN, KARATTUPARAMBIL, ALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAZHOOR PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANCHORE POLICE STATION, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411 001

¶13

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶14

THALASSERI POLICE STATION, THALASSERI.PIN-670 101

¶15

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶16

ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001

¶17

5. SANTHOSH THORAT,

¶18

S/O.GENDHA THORAT, HOUSE NO.203, II FLOOR,

¶19

KATRAJ, KHODHUR ROAD, PUNE,MAHARASHTRA-411 001

¶20

R1 TO R4 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

sts

¶23

WP(C)NO.8186/2014

¶24

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: NIL RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶25

/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE

¶26

sts

¶27

MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J. &

¶28

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶29

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c) No.8186 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of March, 2014

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Manjula Chellur,CJ

¶32

Petitioners are before this Court complaining harassment at the hands of respondents-Police at the instance of 5^th respondent herein. So far as commercial dealing between petitioners and 5^th respondent, there is no dispute.

¶33

According to petitioners, with regard to their

¶34

business, like any other business persons, they have dealings with 5^th respondent. Now it is understood that a crime has

¶35

been registered in FIR No.39 of 2014 on the file of 2^nd respondent police at Pune and some investigation is carried on. So far as said crime, none of the petitioners are parties. However, police are visiting the residence of petitioners in connection with said FIR. Therefore, even if their presence is required for investigation into the said FIR, they may be

¶36

W.P.(c) No.8186 of 2014

¶37

¶38

allowed to keep their lawyer present and said investigation has to be done only in the State of Kerala.

¶39

Learned State Attorney submits, in connection with FIR No.39 of 2014, 2^nd respondent police requested local police to assist them in conducting investigation. In that connection, respondent police visited the house of 2^nd petitioner.

¶40

In the light of above submission, whether the petitioners are connected to FIR No.39 of 2014, as witnesses or accused, it is for the investigating agency to decide and file a final report. It is always open to petitioners to have their counsel, if they were to be interrogated by Police. It is a premature stage to opine that there is persistent harassment at the hands of respondent police. Apparently there seems to be some money disputes between petitioners and 5^th respondent.

¶41

We find no good reason to grant any direction in favour of petitioners so as to avoid any investigation being conducted in FIR No.39/14 on the file of 2^nd respondent. It is

¶42

W.P.(c) No.8186 of 2014

¶43

¶44

always open to petitioners to approach proper jurisdictional High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if they opine that no proceeding should be initiated against them or seek any other relief in accordance with the procedure.

¶45

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶46

MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶47

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶48

sj 21/03

Abdulla v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulla v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichur Vs Sri.P.M.Abbobacker,Chavakkad,Trichur

The Peninsular Plantations Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S. Coastal Resorts (India) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

K.T.Shaji Vs the State of Kerala

P.M.Mahinkutty Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Travancore Blue Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police